Vaultwarden Admin

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two genuinely useful behavioral facts: admin routes require the instance admin token (VW_ADMIN cookie auth), and rejected/missing credentials surface as a {"error","status"} dict rather than a raw exception. It stops short of describing the read/write/destructive nature of the underlying actions, which matters for a multi-action admin tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence front-loads the purpose cleanly, but the trailing "CONCEPT:VW-ECO.mcp.admin-operations" line is internal taxonomy that adds no value for an agent and dilutes the structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return shapes needn't be explained, and the auth/error notes cover the operational essentials. However, for a dispatcher across many admin actions the description gives only category labels (users, config, diagnostics) with no sense of what those actions change.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both action and params_json are well documented in the schema, including the list_actions discovery pattern. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb+resource ("Administer the instance") and scopes it to users, config, diagnostics, plus identity-server and favicon routes. This distinguishes it from the narrower siblings like vaultwarden_accounts or vaultwarden_ciphers, though the mixed scope (admin + identity + favicon) is slightly muddled.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description never says when to reach for this tool versus siblings such as vaultwarden_system or vaultwarden_maintenance; the reader must infer it from the word "Administer." The action='list_actions' discovery hint lives in the schema, not the description, so the description itself offers no routing guidance or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.